Et tu, Nevada?

Nevada polling by Rasmussen:

Clinton 46
McCain 41

McCain 46
Obama 40

I gather, from reading the comments after asking why Clinton does so well in the Electoral Vote recently, when looking only at the last poll done in each state, the answers come in two varieties:

A: Because she's more electable than Obama and will win against McCain (Obama 'could' win but might lose).

B: Because Clinton is receiving a 'unity' boost among Obama supporters whom are saying they support Clinton in polls, and that love is not being reciprocated by Clinton supporters for Obama.

The trend of this happening has the backdrop of the economy becoming the main issue over the past 6 months, and Clinton is possibly perceived as having a better handle on that than either Obama or McCain. Meanwhile, the issue of Iraq has dropped to the cluster of second-place issues.

But in this particular poll, while there is a divide over the economy that favors Clinton by a bit over Obama vs Clinton, its the issue of Immigration, which 18% of Nevadans place as their top issue, that Obama (7-70) lags behind Clinton (26-52), vs McCain. Though this result may just be noise (while Obama has been trending down in support among these issue-voters in Nevada vs McCain for this year, Clinton's rise is in this single poll), I doubt its the sort of confirmation of voters that are switching from Obama to Clinton, in this poll, that the Obama unity boosters in camp B, have in mind, though maybe A.

Update [2008-5-22 19:19:16 by Jerome Armstrong]: Clinton gets her own Brutus today, in the form of NY Gov David Paterson:

"I would say at this point we're starting to see a little desperation on the part of the woman who I support and I'll support until whatever time she makes a different determination," Paterson said, adding: "I thought she was the best candidate and I thought she had the best chance of winning."
Yowza.

Paterson also likens the moral legitimacy of Clinton's popular vote argument to not counting Michigan.

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Comments

198 Comments

GO HILLARY!

Et tu, Nevada?

Brilliant!

Then fall Caesar, I mean Obama.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-05-22 03:06PM | 0 recs
Obama beats McPain in Pennsylvania O-48%, M-40%

YES PENNSYLVANIA!

Pennsylvania has almost 6 times as many Electoral Votes as Nevada does.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rt.aspx?g=162d4baa-59af-4ec5-9d9b-eb6e65 8e86c5

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-22 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes Pennsylvania

Clinton beats McPain big in Pennsylvania too!

by wasanyonehurt 2008-05-22 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes Pennsylvania

So does our nominee.

by Tatan 2008-05-22 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes Pennsylvania

Ah, yes, The Brokered One.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-05-22 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes Pennsylvania

Seriously, when are we going to give up on this shit? I've been a fan of both candidates from the beginning, believing that both can lead out country in the right direction. It's clear to me at this point that Obama is going to win the nomination. I like Hilary a lot and I think she has a great future as a leader in this country. However, the extent that posters are going to here to delegitimize Obama is disgraceful. We're all Democrats and more importantly progressives, let's unite behind our candidate.

Obama is clearly our nominee at this point, regardless of what happens with FL and MI. I have loved both of these candidates since the beginning, but I realize it's time to unite before one nominee, otherwise McCain is going to kick our ass.

Maybe Clinton would have run better against McCain, but we're never going to go because she's not going to run against him, even though some posters on this site actually believe that Senator Clinton can win this thing. It's a fact...Obama is going to be our nominee. Let's stop kidding ourselves and stop fighting so that we can start fighting our battle against this asshole McCain.

by jbessey 2008-05-22 06:04PM | 0 recs
really?

Did I miss the memo where the convention was canceled? The delegates have all cast their votes and everyone went home while I was in the men's room?

I'll work for whoever is nominated by the Democratic party, but that won't be until August.

OK?

by NJ Liberal 2008-05-22 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: really?

So, you want the elites of the party to overrule the Blue collar white working voters who elected the majority of duly elected delegates and annoint Hillary "Queen" in a Coup d'etat. She can tell all those ignored voters that their votes didn't matter. Yea that will guarantee us a win, when pigs can fly!

by eddieb 2008-05-23 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: really?
A: I never said what I wanted
B: Those are the rules
by NJ Liberal 2008-05-23 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes Pennsylvania

Excuse me jbessey but this is not the issue. I fully respect your acceptance of both candidates, but the issue I believe is broader: (1) electability (2) who is the best candidate and why is this so critical at this time.

Bush has humiliated us all over the world. Since '69 when I got out of the army I have lived most of my life in foreign countries. Our international reputation is the worst in my lifetime. We need someone who can HEAL the damage... someone who knows not only the world leaders and players, but who also knows their wives and children.

If a man (like Obama) shakes my hand and gives me confidence that he means what he says I will rest a little easier in my mind; but if someone I know (like Hillary who knows the leaders and their families around the world) touches also my wife and children... then she touches my heart and I will give her my trust.

This is very important, jbessey.

by weltec2 2008-05-23 01:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes Pennsylvania
I guess they convention should vote for Edwards
if we are looking for electability
by marketingman 2008-05-23 03:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama beats McPain

Obama/Webb.

Brings over the Appalachians and takes military experience off the table.

by Bush Bites 2008-05-22 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

Jerome, you know that Clinton was in 3rd place behind both Bush and Perot in polls at this time in 1992, right?

by deepee 2008-05-22 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

that's the Denver argument, polls will be more accurate by then.  

by anna shane 2008-05-22 03:32PM | 0 recs
Hillary doesn't even poll well on this site

in my current poll, she's losing by a 3 to 1 to John Edwards.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-22 03:42PM | 0 recs
For the most part

the internet dosen't like Hillary, suprise, suprise. A substantial majority of the Democratic party at large sees things very differently which the net roots have a bad habit of forgetting about and discounting.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-22 04:07PM | 0 recs
yeah, but on this site?

you see how Hillary diaries are automatically hit the recommend list, regardless of quality.

you see the other posted comments and diaries and front page posts.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-22 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: For the most part

...and then there's that pesky 54% of Americans who think she's "untrustworthy" (and that was back in mid-April).

Any thoughts on what that numner might look like today?

by fogiv 2008-05-22 04:22PM | 0 recs
I searched and couldn't find

any data to directly answer your question, but did find this from May 4, which perhaps sheds some light on the situation:

One-third of likely voters say Obama's ties to Wright make them less likely to vote for him. But Obama isn't the only candidate with divisive connections: One-third of likely voters say Clinton's association with Bill Clinton, her husband and the former president, makes them less likely to support her.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/el ection2008/2008-05-04-obama_N.htm

My feeling is that Obama and Clinton are on a fairly even par regarding the trustworthiness issue at this point.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-22 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: I searched and couldn't find

Even par now based on Wright?

The mid-April source I provided puts Obama's unfavorables at around 39% (which was then a new high).

Your source indicated 1/3 of voters wouldn't choose Obama (because of Wright).  1/3 would be in the 33% range.  So, if we assume that his unfavorables from mid-April were all Wright related, then we can posit that he's improved his standing on that score.  When was the Wright cacophony at it's zenith?  

by fogiv 2008-05-22 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Wright cacophony at it's zenith?

Offhand, I'd say about a month or so ago? This primary has been such a roller coaster, I have trouble keeping things straight sometimes, lol

Ragarding your unfavorable question, I can quote from a source which cited that figure just today:

"Obama is viewed favorably by 50% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 48%. McCain's numbers are 50% favorable and 46% unfavorable. Opinions about Obama remain stronger."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/daily_presidential_tra cking_poll

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-22 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Wright cacophony at it's zenith?

Know what you mean.  Seems like a million years ago.

From your source:

Among all voters, Clinton is viewed favorably by 45%.

So, as of today, that puts her unfavorables at 55% while Obama's are at 48%.

by fogiv 2008-05-22 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: For the most part

I hate to mention the following (but wanted to preface this that just an amateur political observer, and taking advantage of this opportunity to converse regarding the current issues. Also, I am a strong Hillary supporter.):

For all this net roots exuberancy, I wanted to remind you about that Ned Lamont's support from this so-called net roots. I also supported Lamont, I was taken over by the overwhelming support. I can't believe I supported and contributed to the guy, even though I am from California. Now, despite the excitement over the net, HE LOST!!! Will this happen to Obama?

The world does not exist in a vacuum. The net world seems to think that b/c Obama supporters are  all here, he will win. Not a guarantee.

by pleaseno 2008-05-22 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: For the most part

For the most part...Obama has more delegates. Case closed except in the lone state of Denial.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-22 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: For the most part

inforomation is dangerous to her chances

by marketingman 2008-05-23 03:12AM | 0 recs
explain why this is important

One poll of one state contrasting the nominee with a "what if...?" candidate...

This deserves to be on the front page, why, Jerome?

Seriously.

How is this more important than discussing a halfway important state leg race?

by Carl Nyberg 2008-05-22 03:08PM | 0 recs
I see one very important reason,

even assuming that this contest is over and Obama will be the nominee: a unity ticket is clearly in the Democratic party's best interest on any number of various, sundry levels. The accumulated evidence is overwhelming and compelling, not the least of which being a solid majority of voters in the party strongly favor it.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-22 03:23PM | 0 recs
so this goes to helping her on the ticket

you're saying this type of post, intended or unintended, helps Hillary get on the ticket.

Oh I see.  I didn't think of that.  But yeah, that's make sense.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-22 03:45PM | 0 recs
I'm not sure what you mean

but to explain what I meant.. Jerome's article points up yet another area among many areas of strength Hillary posesses Obama does not, making her a decided asset for the Democratic ticket in November in any capacity. It was an acknowledgment of reality, not a sales pitch.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-22 03:56PM | 0 recs
but if it's acknowledge...

but if it's acknowledge, then there is no need to promote it.

as you say, there's no need to state and restate the obvious.  the Obama's camp subscribes to these polling reports.  They don't need a blogger to repeat  the clear and evident.

the only reason left would be to create some kind of pressure.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-22 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: but if it's acknowledge...

What's really needed is polling showing how Obama does with different VP candidates.  There are Clinton voters who won't ever vote for Obama voters and there are Clinton voters who will vote for whoever the nominee is (i.e. Obama) - that poll doesn't break that number down.  There are Clinton voters who would only vote for Obama if Clinton is the VP candidate, and there are Clinton voters who will not eat green eggs and ham, Sam-I-Am.

It's the "Clinton voters who would only vote for Obama if Clinton is the VP candidate" that needs to be measured, and that above poll interests me as a statistics geek, but it doesn't come close to the real measure, if that's the purpose of the poll.

by auronrenouille 2008-05-22 04:13PM | 0 recs
there is some polling

unfortunately it doesn't include Hillary.

but yeah, Obama/Hillary comparisons to Obama/edwards  (for example) would be useful.  

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-22 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: there is some polling

Right, those are the numbers everyone needs, and fast.  I don't think it makes as big of a difference as people think, but that and $4.25 will get you a cup of coffee.

by auronrenouille 2008-05-22 04:25PM | 0 recs
You have to read the exchange

from the beginning. Carl Nyburg basically dismissed this diary out of hand, and challenged it's worth, so I responded with what about it was important to me.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-22 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: but if it's acknowledge...

The thing is that Jerome knows just as well as anyone that Hillary will not be the nominee (he can read the delegate numbers). You won't see him saying "she could still win" he knows she can't... so why is he actively trying to undermine the nominee... is it just spite? What he could be doing is trying to find what his weakness are, and then make suggestions about how to improve them. Maybe he could suggest a running mate.. the only problem with this is that a significant portion of the site traffic would disappear... the people who cover their ears and yell "lalalalala" every time some one points out that Hillary cannot win the nomination would go elsewhere... and Jerome might loose some revenue. So instead we have this farce... never mind that it hurts the party... it helps drive up traffic.

by Tatan 2008-05-22 04:19PM | 0 recs
Yeah, except that...

The most recent polling shows that she is not our strongest pick for VP.

by jaywillie 2008-05-22 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

Of the 18% of Nevadans who cite immigration as the top issue, how many are R's and how many are D's?  Do we have any way of knowing?

by Steve M 2008-05-22 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

Not only that, but it's LESS than 2 in 10 people for cripes sake!

by DemsRising 2008-05-22 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

Well, sure, but I think it's still a good question.

I think we can all imagine the sort of Nevada Republicans for whom immigration is the most important issue, and the sort of Democrats for whom it is the most important issue.  But I have no idea how many people are in each category.

And we can extrapolate those preferences to other states to some extent, as the perspectives are hardly unique to Nevada.

Basically I'm trying to draw something useful out of this post instead of wasting time with the usual "how dare you post this Jerome" crap.

by Steve M 2008-05-22 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

These numbers would mean a ton if there was still a legitimate chance for her to win.

So it goes.

by KyleJRM 2008-05-22 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

One other thing.  Jerome do you EVER post anything that is flattering to Obama or unflattering to Clinton?  

by deepee 2008-05-22 03:09PM | 0 recs
MyDD has become the HRC blog

I'm just not sure if it's the unofficial Clinton blog or the official one.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-05-22 03:11PM | 0 recs
Are we not entitled to one?

All of the other sites I know have become dominated by Obama supporters. Go over to Kos or TPM or Huffington and see how many pro Hillary posts you see.  Most of us are exiles from other places.

by lombard 2008-05-22 03:19PM | 0 recs
you want a Democrat to win or all you

care about is Obama?

by indydem99 2008-05-22 03:33PM | 0 recs
Couldn't this be reversed?

After all, it's HRC supporters who are threatening to vote for the opposition in their candidate isn't chosen by the supers. So I ask you, do you want the Democratic candidate to win or do you only care about Clinton?

by batgirl71 2008-05-22 03:43PM | 0 recs
You sound like the RW'ers

Who complain about a liberal media bias because they don't spout right wing propoganda 24 hours a day(except Fox)...

MyDD manages to maintain a balance and you think it's pro-Clinton. Pop on over to RaisingObama, DailyObama, ObamaPost, or the Obama Talking Points Memo and see how much balance we have there...

by SaveElmer 2008-05-22 03:51PM | 0 recs
Oh...and how can I forget...

ObamaUnderground

by SaveElmer 2008-05-22 03:52PM | 0 recs
Good points, thank you

Recently, I've been wondering the same thing myself. Not to be overly dramatic, but at times I get the impression they're hunting us down with a goal of totally exterminating us or something.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-22 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

The answer is no.

by MissVA 2008-05-22 03:15PM | 0 recs
Why be just another Obama cheerleader?

And have to compete with all the other Obama cheerleading sites.  This site is one of the few places where Hillary supporters can feel they are surrounded by other supporters.  He knows his audience.

by lombard 2008-05-22 03:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Why be just another Obama cheerleader?

But what does this site do in two weeks (or two months) after Obama wins the nomination and there's nothing left to talk about?  Will it turn on a dime and support him as the Democratic nominee or will it betray its progressive roots and support McCain (or Nader or Barr)?  Seriously, it's one thing to be a pro-Clinton site but it's another to be an anti-Obama site, which is what this place is at least half the time.  I know that some of you are not going to support Obama in the general and that's your choice (a bad choice if you ask me but you're choice) but this site has to focus on something for the three months between the convention and the election.  I'll be very sad if it's still an anti-Obama site at that point.

by Gene In PA 2008-05-22 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Why be just another Obama cheerleader?

Gene, you can bet the first place I'll go once Hillary concedes is here.  I'm interested to see if this place survives or just implodes.  I've been a long-time reader of both Kos and here, since the Dean candidacy really, and I enjoy both sites.  I always liked MyDD for being more peaceful and small, as well as being a bit more rational (DKos has great analysis but can periodically stumble into an echo chamber), but when I returned to blogs for the '08 cycle, MyDD sadly had completely lost the "peaceful" side.

I think it'll survive, but not without some sparks flying and some careful steering by the Management.

by auronrenouille 2008-05-22 04:19PM | 0 recs
Don't know. We'll see. My guess is...

Clinton supporters might gradually filter out and Obama supporters become dominant.  A few dogged Clinton supporters will hang around as part of the resistance.  Toward the fall, Clinton supporters who have rejoined the fold will start trickling in again.

by lombard 2008-05-22 04:21PM | 0 recs
Why be just another Clinton cheerleader?

Even Kos posts the occasional thread that is critical of Obama (there was one the other day re: Obama endosing Lieberman in the CT primary).

You may like places like Hillary is 44 and people like Jerome who are completely dedicated to promoting Sen Clinton and criticizing Sen Obama, but I don't.  Todd and the others here are more unbiased, why can't Jerome be?  

I fully expect to log onto mydd in October and still find Jerome trying to tear down Obama.

by deepee 2008-05-22 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Why be just another Clinton cheerleader?

Jerome took a lot of heat for having the courage to support Sen. Clinton even while it was unfashionable to do so on the internet.  He has a vested interest in being vindicated.  

by BPK80 2008-05-22 09:31PM | 0 recs
Rasmussen

said in the report that Obama is only getting 65% of the democratic vote.  Somehow I don't think that will happen in the fall.  Over on 538, people think if may be due to having Hillary in the poll that Obama does so poorly (the Hillary supporters are weakly on board and aren't ready to unify in polls where she is also included)

That said Hillary does have strengths in the EV map that Obama doesn't have like FL

by Student Guy 2008-05-22 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen

I think that is exactly right. When you are asking about all three candidates I think that the poll results are different which would explain why we see Obama doing well in SUSA polls when they exclude Hillary.

I have no problem telling a pollster that I would vote for Hillary because I know she is not going to win.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-22 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen

responding to your tag, only in America can both a woman and a man of color run against each other and be treated in the main like normal lying politicians.  it's it great?  

by anna shane 2008-05-22 03:34PM | 0 recs
The defection amounts depend on a few factions

Here's how I see the main classes of defectors:

1) Reagan type Democrats (both older and midrange) - this segment will be the most likely to defect and possibly the most resistant to efforts by the Obama campaign.  He reminds them too much of the kind of Democrat they don't really care for.

2) Older Democrats (other than Reagan Democrats): less likely to defect than Reagan Democrats and possibly more open to persuasion from Obama

3) Angry female Hillary supporters: don't know the extent of these but I'm beginning to feel this block might be larger than I thought.  Depends on the level of anger, but anger may dissipate and most of these may be amenable to persuasion from Obama.

by lombard 2008-05-22 03:32PM | 0 recs
Fully agree with you there

It makes me wish I had access to the cross tabs to see the gender breakdown (and not all category 3 people will be female but a lot of them will be)

by Student Guy 2008-05-22 03:56PM | 0 recs
You're right. #3 should not be gender specific

But the guys like me are less likely to take her defeat with the anger coming from gender discrimination.  I might be angry but the anger would be generated by other disagreements that are not so visceral to my being.

by lombard 2008-05-22 04:17PM | 0 recs
Ok try it out! waiting for 4 more years has

been my life for past 30 years except for 8 years of Clinton.

by indydem99 2008-05-22 03:37PM | 0 recs
Exactly, and it's why all these electoral college

polls are bogus at this point. I suspect Jerome knows this, and I'm sure the supers do. There is no accurate polling of this question while both Hillary and Barack are in the race.

by Travis Stark 2008-05-22 03:57PM | 0 recs
You can cling to polls...

...but this is a delegate race.

Remember that.

by Firewall 2008-05-22 03:10PM | 0 recs
how is this more important

than the Florida poll that shows Obama is just as popular with Florida Dems as HRC? But she wants all the delegates....

by Carl Nyberg 2008-05-22 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: how is this more important

then ask for a revote? They could do a mail in, I doubt Hillary would still agree to pay, but she'd still agree to the revote.  And if not, then it must be  Denver, when the polls will have more weight, cause we'll see if he gains or loses  more of his momentum.  

by anna shane 2008-05-22 03:36PM | 0 recs
the polls?

democracy and rule of law be damned.

Anyway the solution to Florida was in the DNC rules, the DNC rules that Hillary's people approved. Hey, I'm willing to forgive Ickes for voting that Florida should get no delegates and return to the original penalty--cut the delegates by 50%. You know what, screw it, I'm feeling generous count all the delegates -- guess what, Obama still wins.

Yes, yes the supers have the ultimate say and can go against the candidate with the most pledged delegates and the popular vote (Hillary's fuzzy math doesn't count) but I wouldn't hold my breath.

This either ends in June or Clinton will be responsible for destroying the Dem's chances in November (whether the candidate is Clinton or Obama) and likely for destroying the Democratic party.

by batgirl71 2008-05-22 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: the polls?

that's the spin, it's all her fault, as usual, and as usual i don't buy it. If he had been able to win enough big states and thus enough delegates he wouldn't be in this situation.  If he loses, it'll be his own fault.  He didn't try hard enough so he hasn't his mandate, he isn't Reagan after all, he was wrong about his own ability to unite, he's not as popular as he's been lead to believe. Oh, well, at least it's fun.    

by anna shane 2008-05-22 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: the polls?

What's the spin? That Ickes voted to completely disenfranchise Florida? Because he did. That it's all her fault? I didn't say that.

He hasn't been able to win enough big states? Your point? He'll still win most of those states if he is the GE candidate. He has won the majority of pledged delegates. The metric by which a candidate will be chosen is delegates. I did say that according to the rules that the supers CAN overwhelmingly vote for Hillary but I also believe that will be highly unlikely. I just don't think the supers will want to overturn the pledged delegate vote. Of course, Clinton will argue otherwise, as is her right.

Let me ask you why is Hillary in this situation? Why can't she close the deal? Why can't she win the African-American and youth vote? Do you really think Clinton can win Ohio without massive AA support in Cleveland and Cincinnati? These questions are for the most part as absurb as the counterparts that are asked of Obama.

Here is a question that I am interested in an answer from you. If Clinton loses, will it be her own fault?

by batgirl71 2008-05-22 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: the polls?

yes, she'll do her best but if she loses she won't blame anyone but herself.  

by anna shane 2008-05-22 04:58PM | 0 recs
Fair enough.

by batgirl71 2008-05-22 05:23PM | 0 recs
She wouldn't be in this position

if she hadn't run an arrogant campaign that predicted in December that they would have it all won on 2/5.

When that didn't happen, she needed MI & FL, despite the fact that it was many of her supporters at the DNC who supported stripping those two states of all the delegates.

I know that when you belong to a cult it's hard to see the deficiences of your leader.  At least try.

by jaywillie 2008-05-22 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

Jerome,

She's lost. Clinton will only become the nominee by a coup d'etat. Get over it. Stop torturing yourself.

by NYWoman 2008-05-22 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

If you read the comments from Rasmussen, it is clear that Clinton supporters are distorting the polls in her favor. Rasmussen should adopt the approach that SUSA has taken and not polling Clinton. Until she drops out, polls with her name as a candidate will be distorted.

by MissVA 2008-05-22 03:12PM | 0 recs
C: One should not speak ill of the dead

by obscurant 2008-05-22 03:16PM | 0 recs
Seven
Arkansas
Florida
Missouri
Nevada
North Carolina
Ohio
West Virginia
by DaveOinSF 2008-05-22 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Seven

Seven at one stroke!

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-05-22 03:18PM | 0 recs
That was a great kids book nt.

by Student Guy 2008-05-22 03:20PM | 0 recs
Jerome fiddles while Rome burns

Hillary's chances in May 2008 are just about as relevant as Dean's chances in May 2004.  They're not.  The contest is over.  

When was the last time this blog even commented on the news of the day or the relevance of Democratic policies?  

by zadura 2008-05-22 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome fiddles while Rome burns

No comments on those posts.

Everyone comments on posts like this one because it's stuff that actually interests them about the most exciting nominating contest in recent memory.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-05-22 03:19PM | 0 recs
You forgot Poland

this is the kind of behavior that makes it difficult to select Hillary as VEEP.   You're only hurting your own default candidate.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-22 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: You forgot Poland

I'm surprised she's not trying to have the U.S. annex poland so that she can run another primary there...  then she can drink vodka and munch on Kielbasi to ingratiate herself with the poles.  It won't work... unless she wolfs down some blood soup... ;-)

by LordMike 2008-05-22 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

These polls are being by HRC supporters. Why is Rasmussen polling HRC supporters???

by MissVA 2008-05-22 03:22PM | 0 recs
According to wiki - they're right of center

Scott Rasmussen, an Independent-leaning-Republican public opinion pollster, is the founder and CEO of Rasmussen Reports.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Rasmu ssen

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-22 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: According to wiki - they're right of center

Oh lord his wiki explains it all. His questions are very loaded. He always seems to ask about capital gains taxes.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-22 03:32PM | 0 recs
that is the most telling question

when Charlie Gibson started whinning about the capital gains tax at the ABC debate, the confirmed all suspicion.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-22 03:48PM | 0 recs
Why is Rasmussen polling HRC supporters?

You're kidding, right?  

by DaveOinSF 2008-05-22 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

Uh oh. Patterson better get ready to recieve a ton of angry and nasty emails.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-22 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

All of this derives from Democratic votes, by and large.

Clinton is working hard to keep her supporters from saying they'd vote for Obama over McCain by stoking gender resentment and making absurd claims about FL and MI. Meanwhile, Obama has been very gentle and generous in talking about Clinton, so his supporters are more likely to say they'd support her.

If she were to drop out and encourage strong support for Obama from her followers, Obama's numbers will increase in those GE match-ups.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-22 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

I used to be a Hillary supporter (early voted for her in CA).  I now have no feeling for her other than I'll vote for her if she is the nominee--but I feel as though I'll have to hold my nose to do so.  I hate what she has done lately in her campaigning even though it's futile.  She IS HURTING THE PARTY.  Obama now gets my vote AND my support.  I've signed up to help him and I'll send a meager $10 a month.  I'm not the only one feeling this way.  Give these polls another 2 weeks and Obama's numbers will continue to rise.  Clinton supporters can go through the stages of loss and then come to the fold, or they can go their own way to their detriment.  ENOUGH!

I'm sending emails to all superdelegates listed on Huffpost.  My bottom line, I agree with Ariana-- come to the table and lay your pick down and get this over with.  If you don't, I'm going to register INDEPENDENT on June 4th.  I'm joining a contingency of people who will be doing this to send a message to the DNC-- stringing this nomination process along is hurting the party.  By registering Independent, I am turning my back on the Dem party but not the candidate.  I will vote for whomever the Dems put on the ballot. They won't have me on a Dem list to call anymore. Nor will I give funds to the party. I'll give to individual candidates instead.  THE BOTTOM LINE, THIS MUST BE DECIDED BY June 3rd, or the risk of losing in NOV is far too great.  

by citizensane 2008-05-22 03:26PM | 0 recs
You aren't the only one...

The latest California polls show that many people who voted for Hillary are feeling buyer's remorse.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-05-22 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: You aren't the only one...

Link?

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-22 04:03PM | 0 recs
by Tenafly Viper 2008-05-22 04:25PM | 0 recs
There have been others in the last few weeks

but I'd have to actually dig for those.  This is the most recent.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-05-22 04:30PM | 0 recs
Re: There have been others in the last few weeks

Thanks

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-22 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

"Will" win?  Really?  Gimme "more likely."  Gimme "better candidate."  Because nothing "will" happen based on a poll six months out.  

I'm perfectly OK with her polling well against McCain.  But it doesn't cause me to suspend logic and give me the ability to predict the future.  Our party has (except for three contests) spoken and she cannot win based on pledged dels and the desire of supers to support the leader in pledged dels.  

Telling me she polls well is like telling me scored a 250 bowling.  Interesting.  I'm happy for her.  But it wouldn't sway me.

Notice how the Gallup poll showing her 11 down among Democrats gets no mention.  I could tell you that someone getting only 40 percent of Democrats in the general has no chance of beating McCain.  You'd call me an idiot, and you'd be right.

by niksder 2008-05-22 03:30PM | 0 recs
Maybe he looked in his crystal ball

by jaywillie 2008-05-22 06:08PM | 0 recs
And this sets the tone for the discourse.

If it weren't so patently and unabashedly antagonistic it would make little difference to me.  I thought I stumbled into a bad rec list candidate diary.  

Even if true,  it's inconsequential at this point.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-05-22 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

Patterson had his arm twisted by the Obama campaign a while back and he has gotten into lock step with Obama. If you are a black politician, and you don't get behind Obama, you are political history--the campaign makes that quite clear. And Patterson has some extraordinary vulnerabilities to begin with.

by linfar 2008-05-22 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

The campaign made that clear to Patterson? Got a link?

by heresjohnny 2008-05-22 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

WOW! How insulting is this post?

So it's some black guy conspiracy theory?

What do Patersons vulnerabilities have to do with anything? What are you trying to implie?

Between this and your diary I have no idea how you manage to stick around.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-22 03:38PM | 0 recs
The campaign doesn't make anything clear,

but you're right, those are the sentiments of the African American population at large.  It's a very emotional concept for them.  Other black politicians who switched their support talked about individuals crying and asking them how they could throw their support behind Hillary.

I'm sure a lot of second wavers who support Clinton can probably relate.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-05-22 03:39PM | 0 recs
Once again

Linfar isn't working very hard to hide the racial resentment. We get it. Do you have ANY evidence at all? Or are you just spewing bile because it's the only thing left for you to shovel?

by Tatan 2008-05-22 03:46PM | 0 recs
vulnerabilities?

Are you referring to his historic ability to become governor despite blindness or his remarkable candor in preemptively revealing his affairs?

Nice job -- besides the all-too-common undertone of racism and the completely unfounded accusations against Obama ("made it clear?" if that's so, it shouldn't be too hard to prove it with a citation) this post contains a healthy dose of several other varieties of bigotry.

by semiquaver 2008-05-22 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

So Obama had this all planned out?  He knew Spitzer was going to get busted and that Patterson would be the next Governor.  He then played the "racial unity" card on Patterson, who accepted because he cannot think for himself.  WTF

by hootie4170 2008-05-22 04:48PM | 0 recs
At this point in 2004 Kerry was crushing Bush

Perhaps prudent political analysis would mention the fact that polls change over 6 months. Clinton is sure aware of that fact.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-22 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: At this point in 2004 Kerry was crushing Bush

I am, that's the reason to go to Denver, let's see how they treat each other, let's see if he can win me back, let's see if she can win you back.  I'm for a unity ticket but I know the only chance of that is if she's top of the ticket, she'll invite, she's made that clear, and he won't, he's made that clear. Which would King Solomon choose?

by anna shane 2008-05-22 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: At this point in 2004 Kerry was crushing Bush

He shouldn't have to win you back when the other option is McSame. He shouldn't have to win you back a at all unless he came to your house and kicked your dog.

He won so it's insulting to act like she deserves it more. If she deserved it more she would have won.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-22 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: At this point in 2004 Kerry was crushing Bush

yes, he should, he should try to win all of us to him.  He can't govern if he can't win, and he can't govern they way he wants to unless he gets a mandate. He's a candidate, it's his job to win voters.  

by anna shane 2008-05-22 04:02PM | 0 recs
Re: At this point in 2004 Kerry was crushing Bush

If You prefer McCain's policies then your choice is clear. If not, then your choice is clear.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-22 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: At this point in 2004 Kerry was crushing Bush

it's not just me, he can't shame anyone into voting for him, he has to be not too proud to try. he can't win by not being John.  That has never worked. Kerry couldn't win over the real bush.  Kerry ran a very lofty campaign and connected with Chris Matthews, and not enough others. Americans aren't that 'rational,' they're going to be seeing him on tv for four years, they don't want a scold who doesn't think they're important enough to try to win over. It's trying, she keeps trying and that makes her popular.  She cares, she wants the job, she want to clean up Washington and put things right.  He isn't trying, he's lecturing and playing the transformative figure.  He made a mistake lecturing her on the gas tax idea, too many people liked it, and when he said it was stupid, he was saying everyone who liked it is stupid. Not the way to win voters.  

by anna shane 2008-05-22 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: At this point in 2004 Kerry was crushing Bush

At this point what she's doing is irrelevant. Your choice is between McBush or a Democrat.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-22 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: At this point in 2004 Kerry was crushing Bush

I'm not trying to be the dem candidate, I'd say at this point it's his to lose.  

by anna shane 2008-05-22 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: At this point in 2004 Kerry was crushing Bush

Well it's up to every voter to decide if they thought the last  8 years went swimingly or not. There is a clear difference between McCaveman and Obama so no need to vote based on personality or some other irrelevant thing. The voters choose not the other way around.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-22 05:16PM | 0 recs
Hold up

Why do you go into these broad generalizations when the question is about you?

And you're analysis of the gas tax issue is complete garbage.  Perhaps that's how you hope it was perceived, but I can assure that it was not.  It was an issue that gave him leverage against her in a week when he was getting hit pretty hard over Rev. Wright.

And no, most people did not like the idea; most voters saw it as a cheap political gimmick that wouldn't change a thing.

I mean, how is he shaming people into voting for him?  I'm sorry, but if you're a Clinton supporter and would vote for McCain, by all means, become a Republican because you're in the wrong party.

As for the rest of what you say, it's really not much of an argument at all; at least not a coherent one worth responding to.

by jaywillie 2008-05-22 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: At this point in 2004 Kerry was crushing Bush

"she'll invite, she's made that clear"

Other clear statements of her included that the Michigan votes didn't count, and her even earlier pledge not to participate in those elections anyway.

Since she hasn't kept her word on matters as clearly-worded as that, she'll hardly consider as binding something she didn't even state with words, merely implied.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-22 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

What, no Judas reference like with Richardson?  Of course Obama is the one with the messiah complex, right?  Also... is Hillary Caesar?

by brathor 2008-05-22 03:35PM | 0 recs
Sounds like Obama needs....

A little Clinton electability boost.  Picking her for VP would bring him tons of benefit.  At this point, she's been "written off" by the media- yet still VASTLY outperforms him in the EV maps.  Sounds like he's in serious, serious trouble.  All this BEFORE any major Repub attacks.  

I think we need a Clinton to the rescue...........

by easyE 2008-05-22 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Sounds like Obama needs....

Obama shouldn't reward Clinton's vileness.

I don't care how much he supposedly needs her. Even if he needs to fight both her and McCain all the way to November as he's been doing up to now, I wish he just says "so be it".

That his number actually exceed McCain's in the polls while Obama's still being fought tooth and nail by the whole Clinton establishment is to Obama's credit.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-22 03:44PM | 0 recs
I like winning...

and I suspect he does too...

by JDF 2008-05-22 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Sounds like Obama needs....

You answered your own question. She is being ignored. She is not being attacked. That is why her polls are high. I would guess some of it is because of 'sympathy' votes.

Despite a three prolonged attacks. It's suprising that Obama has come this far and is holding his own.

by MissVA 2008-05-22 03:45PM | 0 recs
Third Possibility

Jerome,

Don't ignore a third possibility (IMHO the most likely).

Right now, Obama and McCain are engaged with each other, and no one is laying a hand on Hillary right now on the merits.   McCain's not attacking her; and neither is Obama.  On the other hand, Obama is dealing with McCain while Clinton accuses him of wanting to violate core democratic values.  It's understandable in this environment that she might, temporarily, poll better than him in places where he's really a better candidate.  (And I think NV is such a place)

Needless to say, if she were the candidate, this free ride would not continue.

by OaktownDad 2008-05-22 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Third Possibility

or the base party members, the blue collar workers, the working families, the single mom's, those who would like someone to care about them for a change see her as the change?  I know he's black and that's new, but many see him as just another man.  Another Kerry, someone who wants the power not the job.  

by anna shane 2008-05-22 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Third Possibility

That explanation only works if those folks believe that John McCain is more likely to care about them and bring change than Obama.  And, even if Hillary has convinced them for now that Obama is Satan, a few months of comparisons to the real bad guy will convince most of them to come home.

by OaktownDad 2008-05-22 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Third Possibility

no one thinks he's satan, maybe an unprepared insensitive fathead, but not satan. Problem with your argument is that he was supposed to win those indies that had a hard time choosing between him and John, he was to win those Reagan dem's, those half-and-half pugs, he was to win in a mandate because he'd need that to govern bottom up.  He was the one that had nice things to say about Bush and pledged to have pugs in his cabinet and said that he might choose a pug for vp.  She spent a lot of time in nevada talking to immigrant families and she called the pug immigration plan heartless. She's nice, she cares, she has empathy and she's simply a stronger candidate that he had expected.  She wants to reverse the bush policies and bring back professionalism and humanity.  You're making a fundamental error if you think anyone supports her because they're against him. The opposite if true, but her supporters really love her and he will dismiss us to his disadvantage. I'll vote for the dem nominee, even though I think he might be dangerously overconfident, because I don't want McCain and I'm old, if he screws it up, I'm not going to live that much longer anyway.  

by anna shane 2008-05-22 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Third Possibility

I don't doubt your sincerity or that many people support Clinton because she's a good candidate.  She obviously is a very strong candidate.  

Many others, however, -- have said some incredibly vicious , meanspirited, and ultimately indefensible   things about Obama.  Lots of that stuff has been said on this site.  And those people were the ones I had in mind.

(I don't dispute that folks have similarly said indefensible stuff about Clinton too).

by OaktownDad 2008-05-22 08:02PM | 0 recs
Ah, it's the man problem

maybe Obama can have a sex change, would that help?

by batgirl71 2008-05-22 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Ah, it's the man problem

there are many good men, and not all girls are stellar. He could try to be a better candidate?

by anna shane 2008-05-22 04:04PM | 0 recs
A better candidate

I ask this in all sincerity, how could he be a better candidate in your view?

by batgirl71 2008-05-22 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: A better candidate

wow, I wish he would have asked me and long ago. He should have stuck to his original message, and earlier realized that Hillary didn't get our sympathy, she had our empathy, and that the more he mocked her and belittled her, the more we didn't like him for it. He should have outed himself on Wright and his controversial associations and not waited until he was caught.  He should answer questions rather than call the questions silly. He should be himself, when I've seen him without his mask he's a nice fellow.  He should prepare better for debates, he always says the same things, from his campaign speeches, and it makes him look empty.  He should admit that he needs foreign policy help and he should name those who he'll take direction from, so far we mainly know who he doesn't listen to, after they say something awful.  He should get to know working class people of all races, and try to understand where all Democrats are coming from. That's enough for a start.  

by anna shane 2008-05-22 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: A better candidate

I honestly did not see Obama as mocking or belittling Clinton (except for that "she's likable enough" that was really bad) but I think that our support of our candidates sometimes changes the lens with which we see through. Please don't take this to mean that you saw it wrong, it means that possibly I saw it wrong.

As for Wright, I wish he had been more out front. But as a Chicagoan this was all a surprise to me. The fact is that Trinity was a respected Church. If his other controversial associations include Ayers and Rezko, in regards to Ayers there is truly nothing there but guilt by association with a man that he has crossed paths with a few times. As to Rezko, I've spend a lot of time looking at this and I agree with our papers that there is nothing there. That said he should have sat down with both papers at the beginning and answered all questions. Debates, yes he sucked, especially at the beginning. Foreign policy? I honestly don't think admitting you need help is good for any candidate. I think Obama has rightly sent out broad goals in regards to FP that many many people in the community respect. I also feel confident (maybe because I've had more time to watch him as a Chicagoan and for a time, a Hyde Park Chicagoan) that Obama will surround himself with a top notch foreign policy team.

He is/was not as polished a candidate as Clinton and some of that newness did show through. To that extent, most of the long contest with Clinton has helped him. I also haven't seem him as being insensitive to or not caring about where "working class people of all races" and all Democrats are coming from. Like I expect you believe in regards to Clinton, I think the MSM meme has unfairly taken over perception that he is an "elitist" candidate.

I know people don't like this next argument I'm going to make, but I think if people tried to look at it objectively and honestly they would have to see there is some truth to it. Obama did not have a problem with the white working class in places like Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, and so on. There is something to be said about the role racism has played in this contest (just as sexism has played a role--which is worse seems to me to be a stupid argument especially when you are the one affected by sexism and/or racism). To say that is not to say that all or even most Clinton supporters are racist. That is completely idiotic. But we do now from the polls in Kentucky that almost 1 out of 5 voters will not vote for Obama because he is black.

All that said, Obama most likely made a mistake by basically ceding those areas that he knew would be most difficult for him. The fact is there is a reason he won Iowa when he had all that time to let the people of that state know him.

I hope he'll get a chance to reintroduce himself to Clinton supporters if/when he is the Dem nominee and I hope they will give him a chance. Hey, I'd even encourage you to send an email to him through his campaign site that says to him exactly what you said to me.

I am saddened by the way this contest has divided the Dems and I know I've personally been caught of with the anger at times. Unfortunately, what began for me as early support for Hillary Clinton has now turned to intense dislike to put it nicely. For what it's worth, it did start for me with South Carolina where a line was crossed for me. I know Clinton supporters see this differently.

I don't think Obama is the messiah, I don't think he is perfect, I don't think that he is not a politician, and I do expect he will disappoint. All politicians eventually do.

I do hope that you and I can work together for whomever is the Democratic nominee, Clinton or Obama but I really have to say that I don't see this going to the convention a good thing for either candidate and for the Dem's chances to win.

I hope that if Obama is the nominee that we can work together

by batgirl71 2008-05-22 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: A better candidate

It's offensive to attribute motives to voters who go to either candidate, those voters get offended.  It's not like if it weren't for Barack being black he'd be a shoe-in.  He came in as an unknown, and he had to win people to him.  That's the kind of  mistake he made when he made his cling to guns and religion comment, he lost people with that one, people who had previously liked him.  It's up to him to keep campaigning and trying to win over her supporters, but certainly by 'knowing' why people vote one way or another he's not helping himself.  The point isn't whether you or he agree that he's been dismissive of her, it's about those of us who do see it. You can't just say we're wrong and must vote for him. That won't work.  I think in a GE that McCain would beat him, just on personality and humor, humbleness, the nice guy thing. Not everyone wants to be lead, and no one likes to be lectured, that's how Gore lost to the fool Bush, some of us just want a president who sees it like a job.  If he's the nom I'll vote for him, but I won't like it and I won't be happy about it unless he does something that makes me want to vote for him.  And had he treated Hillary with the respect he'd show any candidate that represents a lot of second-class citizens, I'd be glad enough. He lost me, fair and square.  

by anna shane 2008-05-23 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: A better candidate

Hey Anna,

You managed to misunderstand or twist what I said so this will be my last response to you. I think if you sat back and took an honest look at your candidate you would find many truly offensive words and actions she took during this campaign but I now believe that is impossible. I don't think Obama ever had a chance with you, fair and square.

It seems to be that treated with respect has come to mean to Hillary supporters not stepping in on her right to the nomination. Sorry, that isn't how this works.

Looks like you look forward to a McCain win. How sad.

Good luck getting over that anger and bitterness. I hope it doesn't hurt to much when Obama is sworn in as the 44th President in January 2009.

by batgirl71 2008-05-23 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: A better candidate

this is tr'd because it's about me, and it's not just about the ideas expressed in my comment.  Please review the site rules, i don't call out anyone personally and I won't accept personal insults anymore. I am no one punching board.  If anyone has a personal opinion about me they feel compelled to burden me with, I'll report them.  this one I won't, I'll just tr it. This is a warning.  

by anna shane 2008-05-23 02:36PM | 0 recs
But racebaiting's okay...

just don't mock Hillary, which he doesn't.

I think you suffer from what most people suffer from - you confuse your opinions for incontrovertible fact.

by jaywillie 2008-05-22 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

Citizensane, don't you think HE'S hurting the party? He's won Republicans that won't vote for him in November. He's won inflated caucus states. He hasn't won any substantial swing states. Half of the party didn't vote for him and he hasn't done a thing to win us over. Very few Americans believe that he's been ordained to "be in this place at this time" to effect change. His ego will sink it for us come November and I think it's incredibly irresponsible of him to continue his candidacy.

by SophieL 2008-05-22 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?
He won republicans who intend to vote for him.
Later on she 'got' republicans who intend to hurt the party.
You make up the rational.
by MissVA 2008-05-22 03:46PM | 0 recs
Now that is just flat out presumptious

You have no basis ------ none whatsoever-----to differentiate the motives of the Republicans who voted for him vs. voted for her.  NONE, NONE, NONE, NONE.  When you talk like that you undermine all credibility.  I'm trying to be nicer these days but when I read stubborn ingrained self-rationalizing and unsupportable words like yours, I can't help but get angry.

How about these explanations?

1) The Republicans that voted for him early on were anti-Hillary votes not pro-Obama votes

2) The Republicans who voted for her later on were spooked by the Wright stuff, "bitter" remarks, and Michelle quotes.

I have no way of knowing the numbers of these either, but they are at least as plausible as your explanations.

by lombard 2008-05-22 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Now that is just flat out presumptious

I don't know why Republicans voted for her, although it's not true that there's no evidence on this point.  

There was a concerted campaign to have Republicans vote for Clinton.  There was none for Obama.

In the last few states, a substantial number of people told exit pollsters they voted for Clinton but would vote for McCain in the general - even if Clinton were the nominee.

Ultimately, though, I don't think this added up to very many people so it's much ado about nothing.

I think that what's more important - and underreported - is the large number of registered Democrats in Kentucky who don't support the national party.  Dems hold a 20-point registration advantage in that state - and get shellacked by 20 points in the general election.  Kentuckians' party registration reflects the lingering strength of the local Democratic party, not any attraction to the issues that motivate people who visit this blog.  So, many of the "Democratic" voters who turned out for Hillary last week would be "Republicans" in any other state and are awfully unlikely to support any Dem come November.

by TL 2008-05-22 05:06PM | 0 recs
They weren't Republicans when Bill ran

Southern and border states won by Bill Clinton (with number of times won in parenthesis):

LA (2)
AR (2)
KY (2)
TN (2)
WV (2)
FL (1)
GA (1)

Total Wins in these states by Bill Clinton: 12

Total Wins by Al Gore and John Kerry combined: 0

The right Democrat can win some of these. Hillary had consistently been leading in head to head polls of AR, WV, and FL and has been close in KY.

I know Obama will win the nomination but his nomination writes-off these kinds of states.  You can say what you want about Virginia but a Democrat hasn't won there since 1964.  Maybe it could happen, but, without Webb on the ticket I would say that is less likely than Clinton being able to win two of the above (plus Missouri and Ohio).

by lombard 2008-05-22 05:21PM | 0 recs
It helps when there's a 3rd candidate

by jaywillie 2008-05-22 06:19PM | 0 recs
Another walking talking point

No credit to Clinton, ever, for anything.  He only had 12 wins in those states because of Perot.

The biggest reason this party is so divided is because it wasn't enough for a large block of Obama supporters to vote for Obama, they had to trash Hillary and the memory of Bill Clinton as much as possible and dismiss the Clinton presidency as a big nothing.

There are reasons why the supporters of Obama have made so many enemies (not just here - everywhere except the sites they own).  They are mean spirited in a way that reminds me of the cheerleaders for Gingrich in the 90s.

by lombard 2008-05-22 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Another walking talking point

I started this campaign with pretty warm feelings for the Clintons, but over time have come to understand something of why they drive the Republicans nutty.

Maybe you can argue that the Clintons were provoked, but to say they've done nothing to contribute to the bad feelings in the party isn't remotely persuasive.

I mean, it wasn't Obama who said the Clinton campaign was taking the "kitchen sink" approach.  That was one of her aides, and it fit.  Flag lapel pins, Ayers, Zimbabwe, and on and on - there have been a lot of gut-level, polarizing appeals.  You may think they're legitimate, but at a minimum they're meant to raise the temperature.

by TL 2008-05-22 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: They weren't Republicans when Bill ran

Thanks - you prompted me to take another look at KY, and I definitely learned something.  I hadn't realized how we'd done there pre-2000.

It's an open question what effect the other candidates had on those races, and I'm not smart enough to know how to tease that out.  Bill got 41.5% in 1992, then 45.8% in 1996.  

Gore got 41.4, with a much weaker third party to worry about (in KY, at least...) but he was also running against a much stronger Republican challenger.

Net, hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison, but it's not clear we have to take a Kerry-like thumpin'.

by TL 2008-05-22 08:17PM | 0 recs
You're welcome

I'm not sure Gore ran against a much stronger Republican challenger.  Bush didn't have such a great record at the time.  When Bill Clinton beat his father, he beat an incumbent president.  I agree  that GWB was better than Bob Dole but Dole wasn't all that bad.

Yeah, Perot ran a very strong campaign in 1992 and the evidence is that he drew from both parties.  1996 was far weaker but I still think he received about 8% of the vote nationally.

by lombard 2008-05-22 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

He's not, he's just trying to win. he painted himself into the anti-Hillary corner and he can't leave it.  It's a fun primary and since it got started I've forgotten about George Bush and he used to invade my nightmares. Such a relief, we need to keep them campaigning until Denver, and then our convention will be the most watched, and our platform will be the most understood and appreciated, and no one will remember that there will be pugs on the ballots.  The longer it goes, the more likely it'll be her too, she just keeps getting better. It's wild, and wonderful, the girl Americans loved to hate has been exposed as a nice person who knows how to listen and who has humility and kindness, grit and courage, and smarts to burn. She's done a lot for us, and I'll stick with her until the end.

And, Barack could improve, he could stop being a lecturer and a scold. He could get to know people who are different from him and maybe get to like them. He might take the opportunity to grow.

and I love it that CM and KO and all those fat heads on cable news can't get their way, even though they hold their breath and turn blue.  It's so funny. Used to depress me but now i watch for laughs. All the indignation, were it not for the correlation between erectile dysfunction medicine and Hillary hate, they'd have no sponsors.  

isn't it funny? And cheerful?  

by anna shane 2008-05-22 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

The clock is ticking down. Who cares what she thinks. If she doesn't behave she will lose her senate seat in a challenge. Her hedge fund daughter who they are now grooming 'chances' will be jeapodardy.

by MissVA 2008-05-22 04:12PM | 0 recs
Not HR-worthy.

by Shem 2008-05-22 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

Regarding your signature, did you see this poll from today?

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/22/1616 48/431#commenttop

by bluestatedude 2008-05-22 07:05PM | 0 recs
David Patterson...

is a schmuck and an embarrassment to the State of New York.

by Ed J 2008-05-22 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: David Patterson...

DING! DING! DING!

We have a winner.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-22 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: David Patterson...

This is snark batgirl!

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-22 04:10PM | 0 recs
No...

That title unfortunately, belongs to Hillary Clinton now.

by Tatan 2008-05-22 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

The majority of the country's Dems are having buyer's remorse, as they should for "Mr. I had no idea what Rev. Wright was saying for 20 years while sitting in the pews", which I believe will end up being BHO's "I did not have sexual relations w/ that woman" moment.  The state EV polling maps aren't lying, guys, unlike Sen. Obama himself is about Rev. Wright.....

by BlueDoggyDogg 2008-05-22 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

You should really get to other sites.

Try OpenLeft.

The state EV's are looking good, albeit different, for both candidates.

BO is favored to win MI and WI (time and time again) even though MyDD doesn't acknowledge it.  New SUSA poll has him up in VA.  Things are looking good.

by Deadalus 2008-05-22 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

He is going to have to expand the EV map more than just holding the Kerry states like MI and WI. Clinton can get states not won by Kerry like Ohio, Florida, Arkansas, and Nevada.

by bluestatedude 2008-05-22 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

First of all,  there are other polls where he is ahead in NV, more of them.

Second of all, he's ahead in Colorado and Virginia and Iowa.  

That would be enough.

Of course he's going to have to expand the map, but I pointed out MI and WI because MyDD refuses to acknowledge polls consistently showing him ahead there.  

by Deadalus 2008-05-22 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

New poll from Virginia, bad for Obama

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/22/1616 48/431#commenttop

by bluestatedude 2008-05-22 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

The SUSA poll had him up by 7 with AA turnout at 18% (lower than in 2004).  That's good news.

In anycase, polls this far out are SOOOOOO meaningless.  When there is a nominee, the polls will change dramatically and then probably several times over the course of teh campaign.

I don't want to bicker, but focusing on polls this far out is a tad bit silly unless they showed one clear result vs. another.  They haven't, and they don't.

by Deadalus 2008-05-22 07:10PM | 0 recs
Wow

An the world exists in a vacuum right, so there's no chance those EV maps that you selectively use to support your case could change...none at all...right?

I mean, 6 months away from the general election...thing's will be exactly where they are now...

Here's an example...Jerome cites a poll showing her winning in VA, but there's also a SUSA poll showing Obama beating McCain in VA...do you see why the EV argument is untenable, that it just doesn't hold any water?

It's simply not a valid argument to make.

by jaywillie 2008-05-22 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

Nice diary.

For what it's worth, I was visiting in Las Vegas last weekend at a big reunion picnic.

Dozens of people there told me that they will vote for Clinton over McCain but will vote for McCain over Obama.

Your diary seems to reflect that sentiment.

by wblynch 2008-05-22 04:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

Right.  

And if that's a static preference we can look forward to a McCain presidency.  But I'm hopeful it won't be.

by TL 2008-05-22 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

(1) You overstated Obama's support.  He's at 40, not 41 in that Obama poll.

(2) This is especially interesting, because NV is cited as a state where Obama has a better chance of "changing the map" than Clinton has.  Similar to North Carolina, where Clinton also performed significantly better than Obama in a recent poll vis-a-vis McCain.

by markjay 2008-05-22 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

"Clinton gets her own Brutus today,"

I wish the bard were here today to do justice to this tragic version of Hamlet we're living. Ohamlet needs to finish the deed already. I doubt McCain will be Fortinbras, he's more suited to Claudius' role.

The Ceasar comparision doesn't hold up as well. Too many vying for the role of Brutus.

by catilinus 2008-05-22 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

MORE REALITY RAP...

Hillary is the overall stronger Electoral Candidate.  She has appeal in Arkansas, West Virginia, Nevada, New Mexico.  She has strong appeal in FLORIDA!!! with senior citizens and older women.  She is strong in the north east and has the LATIN VOTE ON LOCK in California and throughout the 50 states... With this being said Obama has truly never been vetted and is in deep trouble with rural whites (Hillary matches up EVENLY with McCain in this area by the way) and latino communities.  The democratic party can go ahead and commit electoral suicide by nominating Obama who is going  to have SO MANY 527's headed for him on issues from Wright, Michelle, and his past statements on everything from Iran to abortion. Also unfortunately money can only go so far as seen in Pennsylvania where he couldn't even carry the suburbs surrounding Philly!!! What the hell????  Are you kidding me??? What sucks is that all his baggage didn't come out until after Super Tuesday or even last year.  If it did my God, this thing would have BEEN over and he would NOT be where he is today!  Wow oh well go ahead and blow it again DEM's why don't yah.  What stupidity.  Obama supporters please don't start talking about delegates and crap.  A great majority of Americans don't even buy that stuff.  Popular vote is the reality of it all.  And she will have a greater popular vote total after Puerto Rico (even if you don't count Michigan) yah dig??

by nzubechukwu 2008-05-22 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

Great... now if only that was how we decided who the nominee was. Too bad it's based on delegates, cause she's too far behind on that count to have any hope of catching up.

by Tatan 2008-05-22 04:23PM | 0 recs
He still hasn't been vetted?

Really?  That's where you're at?  Still?

And she only has a popular vote total if you make certain considerations, like excluding four states, proving that while its not ok to have a nominee chosen by 48 states, it is ok to have a nominee chosen by just 46 states.

Polls released today show her an Obama with about the same amount of appeal in FL(41-41).  A recent Gallup survey showed that he has pulled slightly ahead among Latino voters and a recent poll of CA showed that Dems would select him over her, the biggest shift occurring among Asians.

So, no his problem isn't even really with rural white voters.

But since we're all just throwing out polls...

And the white voter argument...let me key you in on something, coming from a region of Appalachia myself(PA).  I would bet everything I own that many of the white Democratic voters who supported Hillary in the Dem primaries in KY and WV will not support her in the general election.

I hate to break it to you, but they both seem to run about the same with whites against John McCain(see http://www.gallup.com/poll/107416/Obama- Faces-Uphill-Climb-vs-McCain-Among-White -Voters.aspx).

Among non-Hispanic whites:
McCain:53%
Obama:38%

McCain:51%
Clinton:41%

Non-Hispanic white men:
McCain:57%
Obama:36%

McCain:57%
Clinton:36%

Non-Hispanic white men no college education:
McCain:58%
Obama:33%

McCain:56%
Clinton:36%

Non-Hispanic white men college-educated:
McCain:54%
Obama:41%

McCain:58%
Clinton:36%

The only advantage she appears to have is among non-Hispanic white women, a group she only carries over McCain by 3 points.  She's even with McCain with non-Hispanic white women no college education(46-46%) and has a slight advantage over Obama with college-educated white women, though both beat McCain in that group.

And still, this notion that the Clinton's don't have any baggage...

But you haven't gotten past his not being vetted...so really not a surprise that you're still clinging to such an absurd notion.

I think anyone worth their salt can hear the skeletons rattling in those closets...

by jaywillie 2008-05-22 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

What is the point of this? Obama is our candidate, not Clinton. It is pointless to run these polls and it is pointless to showcase these polls on the front page of this site.

I do not see how polling results from May suggest that Clinton will definitely win in November. There's a long time between now and then. Also, it is quite clear that for the past 2 months, Clinton has received almost zero negative attention in the press besides the fact that she is unable to mathematically win the nomination. I'm glad that she be seen as winning after 2 months of no scrutiny.

Look, the sooner that Clinton drops her futile challenge for the nominatio and Obama is able to focus on bringing back her hardcore female supporters, the better. And once this happens, these polls will start showing that Obama is well-positioned for the general election (which he already his).

by irish09 2008-05-22 04:30PM | 0 recs
Just a couple more weeks.

Once Obama has a majority of delegates including whatever compromise goes down with FL&MI, then we will have every cause in the world to roundly denounce these kinds of posts, which do in my opinion appear to undermine our nominee.

Until then, it's his site; he's free to support his candidate, who is still in the race, even if it is clearly just to jockey for whatever it is she wants on an Obama ticket.  It's not the way I'd choose to do it, but the last thing you should be is surprised.

by semiquaver 2008-05-22 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Just a couple more weeks.

I agree, it's his site and I'm not surprised.

I still think that it isn't wisest choice to continue to downgrade our nominee's chances in the general election. It's time to start the process of uniting and this sort of thing doesn't help.

by irish09 2008-05-22 04:51PM | 0 recs
I'm just glad that

almost no one legitimate is talking about taking this to Denver anymore.  If we're agreed on that, we can start the uniting now, or in a short while.  It makes little difference, given the historic frailty of our opponent's chances.  If anything we should feel sorry for the McCain.  Standing in the way of a Historic Movement can't be pleasant for anyone.

by semiquaver 2008-05-22 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm just glad that

Agreed with everything but feeling sorry for McCain.  Republicans don't feel sorry for you when you are down or have a crappy candidate.  Don't feel pity for them.

by zadura 2008-05-22 05:30PM | 0 recs
Raised Catholic

So I'm expert at feeling far above those I feel pity for.

by semiquaver 2008-05-22 05:33PM | 0 recs
It hardly matters.

Who takes him seriously any more? Hillary's crazies don't even bother to comment on his diaries.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-22 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

Until and if HRC drops out, we still have a race and these polls are very important to Superdelegates and voters in the upcoming states.

by bluestatedude 2008-05-22 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

JEROME ARMSTRONG WROTE:

"Because Clinton is receiving a 'unity' boost among Obama supporters whom are saying they support Clinton in polls, and that love is not being reciprocated by Clinton supporters for Obama."

What does that say?  That some Clinton supporters need to grow up.  It is sad that more supporters of the candidate who is actually winning are willing to get behind the other candidate if she wins than vice-versa.

If the roles were reversed, with Clinton winning this primary/caucus race, and as many Obama supporters were to say they won't support Clinton no matter what as is currently the case with Clinton supporters, wouldn't you be telling us Obama supporters to grow up and accept that our candidate lost and that we needed to get behind the leader?

If Clinton were winning the race and it looked as if she was going to have the nomination taken from her, I could completely understand her supporters feeling reluctant to stand behind the nominee.

But the fact is, Obama is winning by EVERY measure - INCLUDING the popular vote - except the unfair and absurd metric which awards him ZERO votes in Michigan (where he wasn't even on the ballot) and doesn't include the votes of caucus-goers in Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine.

If Clinton supporters really do choose to sit out or vote for John McCain because of feelings of bitterness, that speaks very poorly of such people.  Your candidate is going to lose, fair and square.  If you wish to be considered a progressive Democrat by clear thinking individuals, you WILL vote for the Democratic Nominee in November, even if said nominee wasn't your first choice.

by Obamaphile 2008-05-22 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

What I like the most about Obama supporters, as evidenced by recent exit polls, is their ability to say that they will support Clinton in large percentages in the general election. I am proud to stand with these true Democrats who are fighting not just for our candidate, but also our party. I wish that more Hillary supporters, especially in Apalachia, joined with us.

by irish09 2008-05-22 04:54PM | 0 recs
If the tables were turned

and Obama had almost no chance, it's likely you would see a lot more Hillary supporters saying they'd vote for him if he were the nominee and a lot of Obama supporters crying foul and pledging not to vote.  Bitterness is a two-way street.  Just sayin'.

by semiquaver 2008-05-22 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

Or it could just be that Obama is more polarizing than Clinton.

by bluestatedude 2008-05-22 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

I do not fault Jerome for his passion but am a little disappointed that someone who so logically laid down his premise in one of my top ten political books of the past four years appears to have abandoned it temporarily.

I am only reposting this because it is clear some have not learned the lyrics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxNf2uCxd 3E

Fox, like some here....trying to help Sen. Clinton make her case.
http://www.newshounds.us/2008/05/22/ingr aham_if_superdelegates_were_doing_their_ job_hillary_would_have_the_nomination_wr apped_up.php#more

by nogo postal 2008-05-22 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

I think it's becoming clear that Jerome doesn't even take himself seriously anymore. He doesn't bother to read the comments which point out either the outright lies or idiocy in his comments.  

This was particularly clear a few days ago when, after he called a McCain 8-point polling lead a "double digit" lead over Obama, a chorus of people pointed out the idiocy of this comment.  He didn't even both responding or correcting it.

Basically, he just drops a pile of garbage on the front page, cashes his check from the Clinton campaign, and moves on.  He doesn't really care about the dialogue any more.

by Onward Virginia Democrats 2008-05-22 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

I find that the lack of dialog/thought is coming mostly from Obama supporters, not from Jerome. One of my friends asked me why so many Clinton supporters don't like Obama. I explained it to him but he had a glassy eyed look (he just didn't get it).

by bluestatedude 2008-05-22 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

I live in Nevada. Las Vegas specifically.

The campaign hasn't really even started in here. Obama just needs to run ads on how McCain supports Yucca Mtn (though that issue is declining in importance from people's minds because we've been hearing about ti for the past 20 years)

BUT, what people don't know about McCain is that he wants to ban college sports betting. People in NV will freak out, especially in the big population areas like Las Vegas and Reno (where most of the Dems live).

Once Obama gets those ads running, watch out McCain.

by werd2406 2008-05-22 04:48PM | 0 recs
What do the internals say?

As someone pointed out in the other thread, there's good evidence that Obama's doing more poorly in the hypotheticals because of the defection of Clinton supporters - he's doing more poorly among Dem voters and women.

It's certainly possible that those numbers will stay the same through November, but there's also good reason to believed that they'll move after people have a chance to recover from a pretty emotional primary.  Seems likely that the numbers would be the reverse if Clinton held a similar lead and Obama was telling his supporters that she was stealing the election.

by TL 2008-05-22 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: What do the internals say?

It speaks very highly of Obama's positioning when he is able to be within the margin of error in swing states when he is only capturing 65-75 percent of the Democratic vote. This number will definitely go up. During every primary battle, voters suggest that they will sit out the general or vote for the other party, but when push comes to shove, they will come around. Especially when they see exactly what the ramifications of a McCain presidency are.

by irish09 2008-05-22 04:57PM | 0 recs
Oh please--the answer is B

I don't have access to the crosstabs, but the link provides this helpful piece of info:

"Obama currently attracts just 65% support from Democrats in the state."

This is the Clinton "sore loser" vote showing up again.  Assume a 50/50 split, and 2/3rds of Clinton supporters are now telling pollsters that they won't vote for him.

If even half of these voters carried out this threat (which would still be a massive rate of Dem defections), Obama's and Clinton's numbers would be the same.

Here's my prediction for November, btw: Obama will be the nominee, between 15-20% of Dems (ie. Clinton supporters) will vote for McCain or stay home, and Obama will still win.  The Dems will be rescued by having a ten-point advantage in party ID (thanks, President Bush).

And Clinton will head of the "Naderite" wing of the Democratic party (seriously, how would she come back from that?).

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-05-22 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

The unity boost is probably the best explanation for Clinton outperforming Obama in some cases (not all, but some).  If Obama won a majority of pledged delegates and lost via the supers, her numbers would get worse, before eventually improving, as I expect his to do as well.

by freedom78 2008-05-22 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

Another morsel of info from this poll which substantiates what I'm suggesting, btw: 29% of Democrats would like Clinton to run as an independent candidate in the Fall (!).  Can we agree that's an incredible figure?

But let's do the math and apply some common sense.  Nevada, can we agree, basically split 50/50 (and even though Obama generally has a ten-point lead in the national match-up right now let's assume that's the split there).

Can we safely assume that this 29% share of Dems all support Clinton?  So we're talking about 2/3rds of Clinton supporters in that state.

But let's carry this further.  Of that fraction, do you think there are some who are telling pollsters this because the party doesn't yet have a nominee?  They think by expressing this sentiment they might influence superdelegates and enhance Clinton's chances to be the nominee?

What do you think will happen when the party gets a nominee? (and let's say it's Obama).  Once that incentive is gone, do you think they'll all do what they're telling pollsters now?  Some will, to be sure.  But consider three things:

1) it's a lot easier for someone to say that they're going to vote for McCain than to actually vote for him (some fraction of voters saying they'll do this will stay home, and some who now say they'll stay home will rally in the end);  2) Clinton will have the job of rallying these supporters to the Democratic banner (she doesn't have to do that now, and she's not).

Let's say the Dems make up 40% of the electorate.   Voters who support Clinton, in other words, make up approx. 20%.  2/3rds of this share are now telling pollsters they'll vote for McCain, stay home, or don't know.  Let's cut that number in half, which would still be a rate of defections not seen since George Wallace and the Dixiecrats.  So what are we talking about, really?

A swing of 6-7%.  And sure, that's massive.  But if the Dems really have an advantage in party ID of 10% (which is why the party is competitive in places like Mississippi), that's probably not enough to cause Obama to lose the race.

It is enough to make him look a lot weaker at this point than he is (and that's really what you're getting from these head-to-head polls), but if you go with the above assumptions, which don't strike me as nonsensical, both candidates, actually, have a really good shot to win the battleground states of PA, OH, FL, etc.D

Look at the Nevada poll again.  McCain, with 2/3rds of Clinton supporters saying they won't support Obama if he's the nominee in the fall, heck, with some fraction of this group actually voting for him, can't break 50%.  C'mon.  For the GOP that's a harbinger of impending disaster.

And while I'm not going to turn this into a pro-candidate diary, and we'll all watch as the rest of the process plays out, I wish someone in the Clinton camp would give the slightest amount of attention to whether, indeed, they think it's reasonable, or good, or legitimate, for so many of her supporters, at this point, to say that they'll abandon Obama if he's the Democratic nominee in the fall.

How can one be proud of that?  Just askin'.

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-05-22 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

It is certainly reasonable, good, and legitimate to say that a lifelong Democrat could abandon Obama if he's the Democratic nominee in the fall. This would be based on the thought that Obama will damage the Democratic brand for a generation with incompetent leadership if he becomes POTUS. This would essentially be a protest vote against the Democratic party for nominating the weaker candidate. I was one of those people who never understood the Nader factor in 2000 (why so many of my friends voted for Nader over Gore out of protest). I understand it now.

by bluestatedude 2008-05-22 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

That poll is COMPLETE CRAP.
TRUST ME.
I am from Nevada.

In Nevada, there is no person in the Democratic Party, other than Harry Reid that is more despised than Hillary.
This just proves that polls are wrong.

Hillary would get annihilated in Nevada vs. McCain.
Extreme conservatives in Nevada would worship McCain over voting for Hillary.  However, if Obama is at the top of the ticket many conservatives would stay home in Nevada instead of voting for McCain, giving Obama a good chance.  

by broncoelway 2008-05-22 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

Tell us another one.

by Scotch 2008-05-22 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Jerome?

Ah c'mon....Brutus?

This is now much more a dark comedy than a tragedy.

Should loyalty trump truth?

For the 100th time...they ALL agreed to not compete for Michigan.
She broke the agreement. Michigan broke the party rules.

They are going to seat Michigan and count some votes because they have to politically.

But morally? Ethically? Or doesn't that matter anymore?

It won't happen and Paterson is just telling it as it is.

As for the polls....c'mon again. How was Obama doing in Iowa five months before the primary? In Virginia?

How about answering me Jerome....or better yet...shifting your focus to the real battle to come.

Mark

by markpsf 2008-05-22 06:33PM | 0 recs
You just don't get it

Yes, yes, Gallup shows Obama maintaining a huge lead, indicating that Democrats favor him with 53-55%.

But one poll shows that she WILL win NV.  Clearly, the will of Democratic voters must be overturned.

Yes, a majority of Democrats have chosen and indicate Obama as their choice to be our nominee.

That doesn't mean he deserves the nomination.

The person who deserves the nomination must meet arbitrary criteria selected on a purely subjective basis that can and will change without notice.

(/snark)

by jaywillie 2008-05-22 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

Clinton is now Caesar AND Jesus. Appropriately, she's crucifying herself.

by really not a troll 2008-05-22 07:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

Hillary Clinton Blows (Another) Hole in Her Florida Argument.

by Avandi 2008-05-22 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

"Because Clinton is receiving a 'unity' boost among Obama supporters whom are saying they support Clinton in polls, and that love is not being reciprocated by Clinton supporters for Obama."
Unfortunately, that's probably the case.

The candidates are nearly identical in platforms, yet it appears that some Clinton backers want to vote for McCain in the general because Clinton lost.  

I really, really hope Democratic voters aren't that pitiful.

But I think that once Obama officially becomes the nominee, his support among Clinton supporters will rebound.

I don't get that sentiment from most Obama fans.  I only speak for myself, but I can tell you that even though I'd be majorly angered if Clinton somehow ends up being our nominee, I'll still end up voting for her in the end.  And that's coming from an enormous Obama supporter, despite how much I've "threatened" to not vote for her.

Come on people, it's McCain for gods sake!!

by RussTC3 2008-05-22 08:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

"why Clinton does so well in the Electoral Vote recently, when looking only at the last poll done in each state"

Gee, maybe Clinton does so well in the Electoral Vote because you are ONLY looking at the last poll.  

Could you pick a less statistically relevant way to measure "electability?"  

We are so early in the process of a general election.  Either of the two Democrats has the potential to make significant gains .. once the nomination bickering ends and we start focusing on McCain!

by tastycakes 2008-05-22 09:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Et tu, Nevada?

Paterson? Big surprise...

Anyway he won't be in office past 2011 he will see how that goes over in New York. Expect a Clinton backed Andrew Cuomo to take him down

by rossinatl 2008-05-23 06:34AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads